Cuero v. Cate, No. 12-55911 (9th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this CasePetitioner challenged the denial of his petition for habeas relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2254. Petitioner pleaded guilty to one felony count of causing bodily injury while driving under the influence and one felony count of unlawful possession of a firearm, as well as admitting a single prior strike conviction and four prison priors. The court found that, in this case, the government was bound by its agreement in open court that punishment could be no greater than 14 years, 4 months in prison, in light of Ricketts v. Adamson. The court concluded that petitioner entered a binding, judicially approved plea agreement and stood convicted; the prosecution breached the court-approved plea agreement by attempting to amend the complaint; and allowing petitioner to withdraw his guilty plea was no remedy at all where the Superior Court unreasonably applied clearly established federal law pursuant to Santobello v. New York by failing to order specific performance of petitioner’s plea agreement. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded.
Court Description: Habeas Corpus. The panel reversed the district court’s judgment denying California state prisoner Michael Daniel Cuero’s 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus petition and remanded. The panel held that after Cuero entered a binding, judicially-approved plea agreement guaranteeing a maximum sentence of 14 years and 4 months in prison, and stood convicted, the prosecution breached the plea agreement by moving to amend the complaint to charge Cuero’s prior assault conviction as a second strike, and the Superior Court acted contrary to federal law, clearly established by the Supreme Court in Santobello v. New York, 404 U.S. 257 (1971), when it permitted the amendment and refused to order specific performance of the original plea agreement. The panel wrote that by failing to interpret Cuero’s plea agreement consistently with California contract law, the Superior Court unreasonably applied federal law clearly established by the Supreme Court in Ricketts v. Adamson, 483 U.S. 1 (1987). The panel explained that allowing Cuero to withdraw his guilty plea, exposing Cuero to the risk of trial and receiving an indeterminate sentence of 64 years to life, was no remedy. The panel remanded with instructions to issue a conditional writ requiring the state to resentence Cuero in accordance with the original plea agreement within 60 days of the issuance of the mandate. CUERO V. CATE 3 Dissenting, Judge O’Scannlain wrote that the majority erroneously orders federal habeas relief to a state prisoner on the basis of a non-existent plea agreement and irrelevant state contract law.
The court issued a subsequent related opinion or order on March 8, 2017.
The court issued a subsequent related opinion or order on September 19, 2018.
The court issued a subsequent related opinion or order on January 28, 2019.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.